Bob and Leo are the SAME PERSON !
-
Hmmingbrd1 — 19 years ago(October 27, 2006 02:32 PM)
Good points and it is amazing how much you did analyze the movie. I do have a question tho, at the endwhere Bob married Leo's sister.is Leo marrying his own sister? How does that work? Are you saying there are still two of them and they cant live without the other, or are you saying they are the same person. You lost me a bit, but I am curious.
-
jay_brown71 — 19 years ago(October 28, 2006 08:08 AM)
OK, first off, you're right, I do need to get a life. No argument there. But in my own defense, I just really like this movie, and I didn't mean to over analyze it. Like I said, everything just seemed to fall into place when I finally heard the name George Stark. You have to admit, of all the names they could have pulled out of the air, it would be a highly improbable coincidence.
As for Bob marrying Leo's(their) sister. Well, as I mentioned originally, I think that my synopsis would have to be taken figuratively and not literally, because you could point to a lot of instances where Bob is interacting with other characters (like on the bus for example), and I could run down each one of these interactions in an absurd fashion and try to explain each one in a way that would fit my theory, but that could get pretty pathetic and delusional, and remember, I'm trying to get a life here. BUT, while trying not to get psychotically attached to this line of thought, it now occurs to me with Hmmingbrd1's question that a lot of Bob's encounters could be symbolic. These are just off the cuff, I am thinking them as I type them, and I would invite any fan of this movie to give it some thought and add there own on this thread -- Bob's marriage to Lily simply represents Leo's( their) reuniting with his(their) sister. Remember, its at this moment that Leo "comes back"
- Bob's bus ride to the lake could be symbolic of the painful journey that lies ahead, for all those around him as well
- It could be argued that Bob's very incarnation into Leo's psyche could be when his old colleague calls to tell Leo that he is retiring, and to congratulate Leo on his book, and he wants to refer a patient to him. This could represent the moment when Leo's psyche splits.
Anyways, my wife and I are going to look at new cars today, and to drop my old piece of junk off at the Korean shop around the corner to see if they can breathe any life back into that desiccated carcass. Hopefully they declare it DOA, maybe a new car will help me to get a life. I can just see the young chicks flocking to me in my new Toyota Yaris now
-
Hmmingbrd1 — 19 years ago(October 28, 2006 01:33 PM)
I love this movie too, one of my favorite, some of the others being Clue and Galaxy Quest. You make some very interesting comments. Hope you get your new car, although being married, not sure you want all the young chicks flocking to youLOL or maybe you do.
-
EruditeGoof — 19 years ago(November 06, 2006 06:22 PM)
What about the scene where Bob tells the knock knock joke "I'm a schizophrenic and so am I"? Schizophrenia is often associated with Multiple Personality Disorder. Just something I'd thought I'd point out.
-
pamdalove — 19 years ago(March 03, 2007 10:02 AM)
MAybe its bobs way of becomming completely tied to Leos physe, like u can;t beat him now that hes directly related i mean the moment he and lily are married, Leo snapps back into life. perhaps its his mind finally identifying with the fact that he and bob are now of the same family(or life) theres no getting rid of him now this can be taken literally or figuratively
-
justinmacri2032 — 17 years ago(May 18, 2008 03:24 PM)
wait i am confused you mean to say Bob and leo are the same man like from diffrent time line? I do not see them look alike unless your saying oneof them is from the past and future. How can they be alike if they do not even know if there are time travelers or lost brothers i do not understand. All i can see the movie like any other movie unless you can please clear this up with a you tube clip?
Justin
Bond James Bond -
jay_brown71 — 17 years ago(October 23, 2008 12:33 PM)
Hey Justin, sorry, I haven't visited this thread in a long while, so I hope you get this message sometime. I would just reply with this clip from my original post -
"So, at first, I thought that this line was just a clever allusion to the fact that both Bob and Leo are battling their own psyche. But then I thought it might be deeper than that, and maybe Bob and Leo represent the two sides to one man, both battling for control. Now, I guess I mean this figuratively, and not literally, as other characters in the movie see and interact with Bob independently"
I think that addresses your question.
Jay -
fatcouchpotato — 19 years ago(November 04, 2006 04:17 PM)
Truly insightful interpretation. How odd that your analysis is of a person who is an analyst with his own un-concluded analysis brought about with a person possessing all the personality quirks he hates to see in his own self.
The Metal Man From Titan
"Till All Are One!" -
courtney-strahan — 19 years ago(November 08, 2006 10:42 AM)
I watched this movie last night specifically for a Psychology courseLooking at it critically, I right away found that Bob and Leo could easily (figuratively) be the same man. Or, with that other person (i forget your screen name, sorry) I can also see how Leo could essentially be schizophrenic. Altho, I am not as well versed with Stephen King, so I didn't pick up on the allusion to George Stark. Good eye, mate!
CS. -
Eboran — 19 years ago(November 13, 2006 10:12 AM)
"I watched this movie last night specifically for a Psychology courseLooking at it critically, I right away found that Bob and Leo could easily (figuratively) be the same man. Or, with that other person (i forget your screen name, sorry) I can also see how Leo could essentially be schizophrenic."
I know it's common for people to confuse Dissociative Identity Disorder with Schizophrenia, but you should probably try not to make that mistake in your Psychology course.
-
-
jay_brown71 — 19 years ago(November 10, 2006 05:56 PM)
OK, I promise, this will be my last contribution to this line of thought. Apparently I haven't gotten a life yet, nor a new car I might add (I guess the carburetor is shot on my old car), but, I digress
hamerhead12 points out that Bob and Leo have a physical confrontation. I don't mean to sound like a broken record here, but I did mention that I meant all of this to be taken figuratively and not literally, HOWEVER -
Since I will now have to assume the role of someone defending my hairbrained interpretation of this flick, I shall do so with grim and pathetic determination. I direct your attention to defense exhibit A - Fight Club - a movie in which the split psyche of Edward Norton has many physical altercations with his alter ego Brad Pitt (sorry if I have ruined that for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but its been out for a while now, good flick btw). Furthermore, now that I think about it, we see Brad Pitt interacting with others in that movie, and only in the end do we realize that this was just a way for the director to show us which side of Norton's charachter was in control at that moment. So, with my new found solid ground, I now feel that this view could indeed be taken a little more literally, if we use the Fight Club parallel as a template.
I rest my case, I mean case closed, no wait, see you in a few days probably -
Kumiko_Okada — 19 years ago(November 21, 2006 12:45 AM)
Jay Brown71, you totally rule and deserve all the life you can get. I was not getting this movie at all until reading your posts here. Not only is this interpretation fascinating, it brings to mind a specific novel by Dostoevsky, The Double. I would go so far as to say that the script may be a deliberate riff on that book, effectively updated. Are you familiar with it?
-
jay_brown71 — 19 years ago(November 25, 2006 10:51 AM)
Dear Sir,
Further to your comments and compliments above, thank-you very kindly. No, I am not familiar with this novel, I am sure that I am not as well read as I sometimes allow myself to think. However, after viewing your post, I did some rudimentary poking around on the net, and found this little gem :
"Like Notes From Underground, The Double is a close examination of human consciousness, through an unreliable narrator. I repeatedly raise the question whether this imposture really happens? Does the Golyadkin junior (the double) really exist in cold fact? What really happens at the end? Perhaps the real horror of Golyadkin senior (whom Dostoyevsky eventually refers him as our hero) is that he unconsciously knows his double simply being the side of his own nature that he disapproves, despises and fears? Regardless of the existence of the double, the imposter has simply trampled Golyadkin in the mire, perfidiously intruded him, and showed clearly that the senior and also the genuine Golyadkin is not genuine at all but a counterfeit, and that Golyadkin junior himself is the real one. The book is a portrait of the darker side of despicable personality that magnifies to the full actuality."
Your post has intrigued me greatly, and I am grateful that you took the time to mention your thoughts on the possible connection (an homage? - inspiration?) between this movie and the work of Dostoevsky. I am going right now to another site I found to read what appears to be the work in question -
http://eserver.org/fiction/the-double.txt
Should you find the time, perhaps you could let me know if I am viewing the complete work here, of just the Cliff's notes.
Thanks again, I think you may have torn this case wide open.
Regards,
Jay